Monday, December 13, 2010

Julian Assange's rape case has made the emic/etic distinction highly relevant in this day and age. Before rushing to pronounce rape allegations true or false, it is important to make clear where we are coming from. This would help clear up a great deal of confusion. As Wikipedia puts it,

An "emic" account is a description of behavior or a belief in terms meaningful (consciously or unconsciously) to the actor; that is, an emic account comes from a person within the culture. Almost anything from within a culture can provide an emic account.

An "etic" account is a description of a behavior or belief by an observer, in terms that can be applied to other cultures; that is, an etic account attempts to be "culturally neutral."

Within the framework of radical feminism and Swedish law, these charges against Assange would indeed make him a rapist if found by guilty by one of their kangaroo courts (which do not even allow a jury of peers):

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations. She said the first complainant, Miss A [Anna Ardin], said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of August 14 in Stockholm.
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W [Sofia Wilén], on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

In Sweden, as well as Norway for ten years now and I'm sure a lot of jurisdictions corrupted by feminism, having sex with a sleeping woman is rape (Norway is even one step ahead of Sweden and just increased the minimum punishment from two to three years). Even a woman one is already sleeping with and who will not even realize she has been "raped" until days or weeks later when she has her regrets for some reason, like the man not calling or sleeping with someone else, and often not until a lawyer versed in feminist law has explained to her that it is rape. I was amused to see this delay referred to as "rape latency" on a Swedish blog; this is just one of the absurdities one has to posit in order to prop up the feminist concept of rape and make it internally consistent.

But all of this is merely emic rape, intelligible solely within a radical feminist framework. This point cannot be underlined enough. No reasonable man or even reasonable woman will consider this rape and nor should we respect this law or have any sympathy for the "rape victims" it defines into existence. We need only acknowledge that this definition can be used at a woman's whim to mobilize a gang of blue thugs against men, even internationally, as we have seen -- and then we need to fight it. I certainly advocate defending yourself against thugs with brutal violence, but it is equally important for men to subscribe to an etic definition of rape. Resistance to feminism thus starts in your head, and the etic view of rape would be the one used by evolutionary psychology. Etic rape is sexual intercourse resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she is threatened by death or serious injury. It requires a kicking, screaming victim; so if Sofia Wilén woke up and did nothing to resist, she was not raped. This also corresponds closely to the common-law definition ("carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force and against her will") and the definition used by most jurisdictions until very recent feminist corruption of justice. Norway, for example, used a definition of rape I can agree with until the year 2000. Feminist rape law reform has spawned terms such as "rape-rape" to distinguish feminist rape from real rape, indicating that people don't truly buy it and deep down maintain the etic view.

Allow me now to quote our great Western literary canon. This is a from a sex scene in The Crying of Lot 49 (p. 29):

She awoke at last to find herself getting laid; she'd come in on a sexual crescendo in progress, like a cut to a scene where the camera's already moving.

If Thomas Pynchon was a feminist, he should have written that Oedipa "awoke at last to find herself getting raped." Or at least she ought to realize she'd been raped by the end of the book, and it ought to end with a rape trial rather than a stamp auction. Now, I know a great many feminists have read this story, and other accounts like it. Do they really think of rape when they hear something like this? No, it is only when convenient in order to bring down state violence on a man that they reinterpret ordinary sex as rape. I don't recall any discussion or mention of rape when we read Lot 49 for class as a graduate student in English, and that is because it does not occur to women unless they have an ulterior motive that this can be rape. They don't really want to reinterpret the canon to find rape everywhere or even act like the feminist definition is valid in their own lives -- unless they have a specific axe to grind.

Men do everything we do in order to get laid. That is why men do great things. Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks so that he could have young, beautiful groupies and fuck them. And he did. He is quite alpha, yet he is vulnerable to feminist sex law because that is how far it has gone. No one is safe. All men need the men's rights movement to stand up for the nullification of feminist rape law. The fact that Assange is incidentally involved in other controversial business and is wanted by the USA is a red herring here. These ridiculous rape charges can easily stand on their own and get men locked up. It happens all the time. I am glad this is finally starting to sink in, and rape accusers relying on the feminist, emic definition will hopefully face a great deal of derision from now on. Needless to say, it is equally ludicrous to call sex without a condom "sexual molestation." It makes sense emically within a bizarrely sex-hostile feminist setting, but men should refuse to stand for it anymore. Nor do we accept that there is anything wrong with "using our body weight to hold a woman down in a sexual manner." This is what's otherwise known as the missionary position, presumably, and it is perfectly respectable.

Assange has yet to prove his chops as an MRA and I don't know if he is one. Now is the time for him to come out as an anti-feminist or MRA. If he is one of us, he will not deny the charges, but rather attack the Swedish law itself. He has done nothing wrong even if the charges are true -- nothing that can even tarnish his reputation -- so it would only make him look like a foolish feminist to deny them. The rest of the world has already caught onto the fact that feminism is what's on trial here. A rape trial will expose emic feminist rape to a level of scrutiny it cannot survive. The cat will be out of the bag for the feminist rape industry, and scorn will shift to their alleged victims. I think we have reached the point of critical mass with this case, and at the very least women won't be able to accuse rape so smugly any longer when there is no etic rape. Sweden is making a mockery of itself here, which is well-deserved, but many countries are not that far behind. Now I hope the entire climate of opinion will change so that our legal systems can be reformed throughout the Western world. Imagine how many men are imprisoned due to feminist emic rape. It will occur to us that miscarriage of justice has occurred on a grand scale and the backlash against women will be cataclysmic -- I hope.

Thus it is possible for rape accusations to be both true and false at the same time. The accusations against Assange are quite possibly true within their emic setting. But they are decidedly false in an etic, culturally neutral sense even if the women are telling the truth. So the question becomes not whom to believe, but whose side are you on? Men have the power to decide this in our favor. Let us now toss the feminist definition of rape in the trash bin of history.

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

I am pleased that the Swedish feminist justice system is making a fool of itself in the eyes of the entire world as we speak. The hubris of feminist prosecutors relying on feminist sex law knows no bounds, but they are setting themselves up for a fall.

It is important to understand that the persecution of Assange is not some kind of aberration. It is not a conspiracy having to do with international politics. Nor are the accusations technically false. What we are witnessing is simply the normal workings of a feminist justice system. In Sweden as well as Norway, women routinely accuse men in this fashion in order to bring down upon them the violence of the state. Thanks to a succession of feminist rape law reform, women don't have to make up some sort of story about being forced to have sex in order to have a man prosecuted for "rape." All a woman has to do is show up at a police station, state that she has had sex and is unhappy about it for some reason, and the cops will gleefully trump up rape charges; or if they won't, feminists higher up in the system will make them proceed with the case. Finally, the cases they lose or are forced to drop because the accusations are too absurd even in Scandinavia are portrayed in the media as men getting away with rape and a relentless campaign is waged to further extend the scope of sex law and preferably even abolish the jury in order to convict more men.

What is so heartening about the Assange debacle is the refusal of the rest of the world to buy into the victimology of the accusers (Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén). This finally shows the limits of feminist sex law. There comes a point when the definition of rape is so diluted that it is plain for all but the most radical feminists that the real villain is the legal system itself. I am glad this is getting so much publicity, because it will hurt women and benefit men in the long run to expose the nature of a typical Scandinavian rape prosecution. Our feminists are smart enough to shroud these cases in secrecy and will usually not name even convicted rapists publicly, but now they can't help but receiving full scrutiny.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

I have previously expressed my heartfelt appreciation for the killing of policeman Olav Kildal. This was truly a breath of fresh air in an escalating police state. Now the trial has taken place and our hero has been sentenced to more psychiatric "treatment." Of course, he was already subjected to this and had no cognitive liberty even when sitting peacefully in his own home, which is why he had to defend himself against invading thugs sent by the state in the first place, so the conviction hardly makes much difference. Anyone can be a victim of psychiatry and lose his physical and cognitive liberty at the whim of doctors. In this connection I want to make my stance on psychiatry and cognitive liberty known for the record, as well as the consequences if I should ever have my cognitive liberty infringed on.

Cognitive liberty, which I fully support, is the freedom to the sovereignty of one's own consciousness. This sounds like a really obvious, basic human right, but in practice there is no such thing as self-ownership of our own minds. In fact, the state acts like it owns our consciousness and sadly there is surprisingly little opposition to this (it is telling that the Wikipedia entry on cognitive liberty is a stub shorter than this blog post). The war on drugs is bad enough. While I personally can't be bothered to use recreational/entheogenic drugs or alcohol anymore, I believe that of course anybody should be free to alter the state of their consciousness by any method. Far more crucial, however, is the freedom from being forced into a different state of consciousness against your will. Psychiatry's right to police your consciousness and indeed your entire personality is a major social problem. The swine Olav Kildal died while trying to enforce our lack of cognitive liberty. This was a defensive, much deserved killing that cheered me up. Now the court has ruled that we are not allowed to defend ourselves against psychiatry by killing cops, which means judges are just as guilty as cops in violating our cognitive liberty and deserving of the same public contempt and violence.

A common misconception used to justify force in psychiatry is the idea that the "patients" are dangerous. But in fact, only 6% are considered dangerous. The vast majority of force is used to coerce compliance with "treatment"; in other words, solely to change people's consciousness. And even when people are dangerous, forcible psychiatric "treatment" is always wrong, as is preemptively locking someone up. Insanity does not exist and should have no bearing on criminal cases, either. Psychiatric treatment, like other forms of torture, is never an acceptable punishment in a civilized state and of course it is equally ludicrous to plead innocence by reason of insanity. Like Thomas Szasz I reject the concept of mental illness, but even if you believe in it, forcible treatment is wrong. It is such a serious violation of your integrity that lethal self-defense is always justified. If ever a victim of psychiatry, here is what I would do. I would first attempt to kill the cops or whoever tried to apprehend me. Failing that, I would feign docility in order to get out as soon as possible and then kill a representative of the industry as revenge. Your life is over anyway when you are trapped in that system and the state is lording it over your innermost feelings. If only people working in the vast infrastructure responsible for this oppression risked more frequent violence and malicious revenge wherever they go, maybe they would reconsider if it is really worth it.

The anti-psychiatry movement is unfortunately tainted with Scientology. I appreciate Scientology's work against psychiatry, but I only wish it would be possible to foot a resistance without bringing in some equally deranged bullshit.

Finally, here is how anti-psychiatry ties in with men's rights. While resisting psychiatry is a human rights issue, killing cops is also very much a men's issue. Every pig killed is also a blow against feminism, so men should be doubly elated whenever an officer goes down in the line of encroaching on our cognitive liberty.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

A category error (or category mistake) is a semantic or ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing or group which could not possibly have that property. Imputing culpability for sexual abuse or rape of boys to women is such a mistake. The lie that women can rape or sexually abuse males is I think the most preposterous and egregiously offensive category error imaginable. I have addressed this topic numerous times, but it cannot be emphasized enough that the notion of a female sexual abuser is a complete and utter falsehood. Since sex is a female resource, any male is only lucky to get sex from women regardless of whether he is underage, forced or whatever.

The lie that boys can be raped by women was invented by feminists during the latter part of the twentieth century. At no time previously in no culture during the entire history of civilization did the notion exist that boys can be harmed by pussy the same way girls can be raped by men. As these were mostly patriarchal times according to the feminists themselves, surely it would have occurred to society that boys can be sexually preyed on by women if indeed this is a problem, and we wouldn't need to wait thousands of years for feminists to identify the "problem" and pass gender-neutral sex laws in order to punish female sexual "predators." Only a gullible fool can buy this official narrative and think feminists had the best interests of boys in mind when they decided there is no difference between the sexuality of boys and girls and therefore boys are just as vulnerable to sexual abuse by women as girls are to men. In fact, this lie is merely instrumental to the greater charade of social constructionism and war against male sexuality. I do not think the top feminist ideologues are such drooling retards that they actually believe boys are "abused" by pussy rather than lucky. They merely sputter this tripe of political correctness in order to further the feminist agenda because otherwise more men would catch on to the relentless persecution of male sexuality that is going on.

Crudely speaking, access to women's bodies is the core of men's liberation and should be pursued as vigorously and violently as the feminists have attacked men to the point where I quite literally can't have sex without being a criminal anywhere in the world at the moment. At least this is my vision of what the men's movement should be, and needless to say, any notion of female rapists is diametrically opposed to the aim of the men's movement. I am therefore infuriated by supposed MRAs playing the part of useful idiots for the feminists in promoting the lie that women can be sexual abusers, and this is now happening alarmingly often. Just witness Paul Elam at A Voice for Men:

What about all the men in those classes who have already been sexually abused and victimized by female teachers in the elementary schools, middle schools and high schools they attended prior to attending Hamilton? The fact is that there is an all but silent epidemic of female teachers in America that are sexually abusing, raping, young male students. And they are getting away with it, either at the hands of a judicial system that seldom delivers more than a slap on the wrist to the perpetrators, or the media that is as likely to play the “hot for teacher” angle as it is to covering it like the crime it is. This, and much worse is fostered by an indifferent and misandric culture that ultimately either finds blame with the male victim, or sees him as just another guy who got lucky, or both.

This is the speech of a blithering idiot. It is time for some patricide in the men's movement. If esteemed "MRAs" hold views like this, I need to distance myself from the movement and pick another label. Anyone who fails to comprehend that these boys are lucky -- so lucky that I am consumed by jealousy and would have killed for that kind of experience myself -- is not someone I want to be associated with even though I agree with just about everything else they stand for and even the overall point of the article just quoted. The Spearhead similarly reads like a cesspool of feminist dross and I have mostly given up commenting there because they never get it.

The view expressed by Paul Elam above is so absurdly detached from human experience that he downright fails the Turing test and must be a zombie. Not a philosophical zombie -- that would be too nice -- but a traditional one who blatantly lacks any trace of humanity. I don't think Paul is conscious, because it really doesn't seem like he has any inkling at all of what it is like to grow up as a heterosexual boy even though he purports to be a man. Youth is not a fun time for boys, because your sexuality is worthless and women are infinitely desirable and unattainable at the same time. Sexual frustration is all I can recall from my youth, overshadowing everything else until I paid to lose my virginity at 21. Anyone suggesting that too much sex is a problem for boys is not just a moron but so offensive I want to stave his face in with a rock. The commonest insult women use is "you can't get laid." This is hurtful because it is generally true. How do you surpass that? By saying you can't get laid even at 32, but there is an epidemic of young schoolboys getting laid and we have to use your tax money to prosecute and incarcerate these women to "protect" these male "victims." This is the ne plus ultra of feminism, folks. Intimacy between the sexes is now so ferociously criminalized thanks to feminism that a woman in Nevada got life in prison merely for letting a boy touch her breasts (so much for the lie that women "are getting away with it," Paul). The feminist utopia has arrived. And "MRAs" are cheering them on, pretending the deleterious effects of involuntary celibacy don't exist and the greatest thing is to imprison women for bogus sex crimes as much as we do with men. I renounce this movement as long as you all are just an extension of feminism. We need to make it perfectly clear that women are never culpable in any way for having sex with underage boys or "raping" males, and make it a priority to fight the laws feminists have passed criminalizing women for being nice to boys. Until then, we don't belong to the same movement.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Since 2008, Norwegian publicly traded companies have been required to have 40% women on their board of directors, or else be forcibly dissolved. Despite simply relying on brute force, this law has been praised as a paragon of equality; a great advancement for women that should be looked up to and imitated worldwide. If you believe in forcible equality of outcome, we are on the right track.

Or so it seemed. Now it turns out that roughly half the companies affected by the quota have changed their organization to avoid it. By opting no longer to be publicly listed, they can avoid having to appoint so many women to directorships. Finding qualified women is often problematic, it means you have to fire more highly qualified men, and in any case companies dislike this kind of government infringement on their autonomy. 31% of CEOs surveyed say they reorganized the company in order to circumvent the quota.

So not only has this attempt to coerce equality stirred up discontent and provided grist to the mill for MRAs who, as I do, advocate sexual coercion in response to feminism based on the feminists' own violent logic -- it has actually been counterproductive. In absolute numbers, because there are now fewer directorships to fill, representation of women in the boardrooms is now back nearly to the level of 2007, before the law went into effect, and declining.

Doubtless feminists will propose more stringent laws to close this loophole. Which will in turn stir up more hatred and more morally legitimate use of force for the advancement of equality for men as well. It is by now abundantly clear that equality is not achievable without violence (or at least threat of violence), and even rather drastic measures are largely ineffectual. As the use of coercion to promote women's equality escalates and becomes more accepted, the case for sexual coercion against women to even the score in that supremely important and unequal arena will inevitably be strengthened.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Norwegian feminists have once more escalated the war on male sexuality. For example, the minimum sentence for rape has been increased by 50%, from two to three years. An overview of all the changes now in effect can be found here, and here is the official document attempting to justify them. Penalties for real violence such as murder have also been toughened somewhat (about 30%), but sentencing guidelines for sexual crimes -- most of them entirely bogus, based on nothing but misandry -- are now even more absurdly out of proportion, conveying the unmistakable moral that as far as Norwegian justice is concerned, the sanctity of a woman's vagina is worth more than her life. Based on possible jail time, it is far less serious to drive drunk and kill a girl (up to 6 years) than to have consensual drunken sex with the same girl which she later regrets (up to 8 years). The latter act would be so-called negligent rape, which Norwegian feminists introduced ten years ago, abolishing mens rea in order to convict more innocent men. This time they have left the definitions alone and merely ramped up sentencing, since rape and other sex crimes are already so loosely and preposterously defined as to be meaningless.

Needless to say, my seething anti-feminist hatred has just increased accordingly. I am now a good 50% more enraged.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

It is politically correct to criticize Israel and it is politically correct to demonize men for having sex and to support rape convictions no matter how ludicrous. But what happens when an Arab man is convicted for rape by deception of a Jewish woman, after pretending to be a Jew? The cognitive dissonance going through these little CNN journalists' brains is palpable. Should they call it rape or racism? It turns out that anti-Israeli sentiment is stronger than feminism in this case, so they slant the story sympathetically towards the "rapist."

"It is terrible, but the law says very clearly that if someone has sexual intercourse using deception about his identity to conduct the act, it can be considered rape," said Leah Samael, a lawyer specializing in civil rights and human rights cases.

But, if the circumstances had been different -- if a religious Jew had said he was not religious in order to woo a potential suitor -- "he would not be brought to court," she said. "And I am not sure that, on this occasion, it is a reason to charge. To have intercourse in daytime in a deserted building in the center of town -- I say the circumstances speak for themselves."

She added, "The thing that interests me in the case is the need, the necessity, of Arabs in Israel to pretend. To speak without an accent so as not to be seen as Arabs. To dress not to look like Arabs."

If the racial aspect were absent, CNN would assuredly have hailed the conviction as a victory for women, as they usually do whenever the scope of any kind of sex law is expanded. That said, feminism does appear to be a very Jewish problem. They do have a point there. Israel is evidently a feminist hellhole on a par with Scandinavia. I just wish they would be able to admit that the core problem is feminism rather than racism or religious discrimination.

Feminist rape law reform has proceeded to the point where men who say they are against rape increasingly come across as buffoons. When we look at actual rape trials, it is evident that the legal concept of rape is now such a charade that even journalists are starting to catch on, albeit so far only when political correctness dictates that the accused man is worthy of some special sympathy.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Yvette now naively thinks she has proven me wrong. It's funny how she was a social constructionist until she found a paper self-described as "entirely based on the biological differences between men and women" which appears to support her argument. However, it fails to prove what she thinks it does.

Updated—this proves my point that higher gender inequality worsens hypergamy, and vice versa. It’s the final nail in Eivind’s coffin, and while I’m sure he’ll write up something about refusing to accept it because it clashes with his worldview, that’s the end of the conversation for me.

That paper by Gilles Saint-Paul is far from a final nail. It is unpolished and unpublished, contains a lot of math but little reference to the real world, and makes a number of simplistic assumptions for the sake of the model, such as "children cannot borrow to accumulate their own human capital and must stick with what they inherit from their parents" (p. 6), and a sharper dichotomy between alphas and betas than I have seen anywhere else (along with the assumption that alphas are also the most productive members of society, which the author himself admits is problematic). Saint-Paul argues that the only two possible equilibria are the Victorian type (homogamy -- people marry someone with the same rank in the distribution of income) and the "Sex and the City" (SATC) type, where women are hypergamous. He claims too much inequality leads to a switch from a Victorian to an SATC equilibrium, where more women are better off unmarried and mating with alpha men. The Victorian equilibrium is indeed preferable for most (beta) men and this is what I am advocating, but I don't see how we are moving in that direction as women get more equality. The SATC model clearly fits reality better now, so feminism is certainly not conducive to a Victorian marriage market. No amount of economic theory can disprove this observation in the real world.

I also suggest Eivind Berge look into parental investment, which explains exactly why the above link would be true. Primates which are most gender equal also tend to be the most promiscuous, ie, ever male gets to mate. Next time, don’t start an argument about human nature with me when I’m in the middle of studying for an anthropology exam.

Of course I know about parental investment. The unequal minimum investment fixed by biology makes women the selective sex. Bateman's principle applies to most species and especially humans. Even though it may be true that females of more gender-equal primates are more promiscuous, making society more equal will not change the nature of women in any reasonable time. They will continue to follow their instincts and the difference will be that now they can afford to reject more men, which is what they are doing in this feminist hellhole.

It’s rape if there’s no consent. You’ve provided zero reasoning, and the educated world disagrees with you. Most people in the developed world disagree with you. Burden of proof is on you.

Only radical feminists believe lack of consent is a sufficient definition of rape. The definition I have used is almost verbatim from Thornhill and Palmer's A Natural History of Rape. They define rape on page 1 as "copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to the victim or in death or serious injury to individuals the victim commonly protects. Other sexual assaults, including oral and anal penetration of a man or a woman under the same conditions, also may be called rape under some circumstances." Are they not educated? Craig T. Palmer is an anthropologist, so I guess you aren't working on a real education yourself?

The feminist definition serves its purpose of putting more men in prison, but it's easily shown that people don't actually believe in it. Humans instinctively distinguish between rape and lesser sexual coercion or simply sex without consent and don't treat them alike in real life. Husbands of women who don't bother to resist sex even though they are not threatened with violence will not consider it rape even if they otherwise profess feminist views. They will consider it cheating. Only if their wife is actually forced (or threatened with death or serious injury) to have sex will they consider her raped. Most women still consider this to be the definition as well. There is a lot of "rape" going on in the feminist sense where women don't realize they have been raped and could have had the man convicted as a rapist. The feminist definition is meaningless except as a tool for terrorizing and imprisoning men.

Bullshit. If your goal is to get laid and you do it by going to bars and clubs, you’re going to find one kind of women. Your anecdotal evidence is hardly enough to justify rape. Let’s discuss this when you hopefully address the fact that men have sexual value to women.

Men don't have anywhere near the same sexual value to women as women have to men, and the evidence for this is not exactly anecdotal. This profound inequality justifies rape as much as other inequalities justify affirmative action in favor of women. Also, I look for women everywhere and don't even go to bars anymore. I quit drinking and have realized that bars are for beta men only venues for being rejected by women while wasting money. I want to get married or do whatever it takes to have regular sex.

How do you not get this? You’re stating that the research inherently leads one to believe that rape is justified. Obviously it doesn’t, the one person who understands it best disagrees. So obviously it isn’t inherently in your favor.

The research shows that sex is a female resource. If we are to have equality, some manner of sexual coercion would be justified. This is such a short step removed from what Baumeister says that he felt obliged to include a disclaimer condemning rape. Of course he can't say rape is justified, or the article would be unpublishable. But that does not prevent readers from drawing their own conclusions.

So an infant can’t be raped because they didn’t resist?

Infants can be sexually abused and that would be at least as bad as rape. But it's not controversial that child sexual abuse is still a separate concept from rape in Norwegian law. The child being under a certain age does not automatically make it rape. Your ignorance of Norwegian conditions is as evident here as in thinking you have to supply a machine translation of my blog so the local women can comprehend it.

All that is required for a woman to rape a man is a lack of consent on the man’s part. Forgetting for a moment that not all men are as desperate as you to have sex with this, I challenge you to actually prove that 100% of heterosexual men would sleep with any woman period.

I never claimed all men "would sleep with any woman period." I say no man ever deserves to be considered a victim if he is forced by a woman, even if he resists to the best of his ability. Of course it is possible for a man to resist a woman and even feel genuinely violated. In the same way it is possible for you to feel horribly violated if I deposit a million dollars into your bank account against your will. But you wouldn't get much sympathy, particularly from people living in poverty. A man claiming victimhood for rape by a woman gets as much sympathy from me as you would get in my analogy claiming you have been robbed because somebody gave you money. Sex is a female resource, and heterosexual sex is the transfer of value from a woman to a man. Female sexuality is objectively valuable, just like money, and the few individuals who feel otherwise are not reasonable and should not be taken seriously. They are irrelevant. Certainly the law should not recognize women raping men any more than it should recognize unwanted gifts as robbery. Female rape is a feminist lie invented to bolster the lie that the sexes are equal and serve as a red herring obscuring the fact that feminist rape law is pure misandry.

I remind you that you contradicted yourself repeatedly by stating that underage women are not good enough to have sex with.

Not quite. I stated that prebubescent girls are not desirable sex partners and I don't pursue them. (But that does not mean they could rape me... LOL, you are as naive as you are unpleasant.) For the record, I will sleep with any girl who is pubescent and up regardless of the consequences. I am not born yesterday. I have by no means internalized the misandry saying it's bad to have sex with girls simply because they are underage, and I laugh at men so stupid and brainwashed by feminist propaganda that they think underage women are off limits.

Sometimes? Please. See above, that proof? Showed that it increases when women have wealth of their own. If sex really was all you cared about, you would be pushing for more equal opportunities and more equal wages for women so you’d have a better chance at finally getting laid. I guess sex isn’t all you care about then.

The "proof" was pure mathematics and does not reflect the real world. Women with wealth of their own act more like SATC than Victorians in the real world, and beta men such as myself get less sex as a result.

Blacks were also defined as one third of a person for quite a long time. Simply because it was tradition doesn’t prove a thing, sorry bud.

That example also proves nothing. Some traditions are right, some not. Feminist redefinition of rape is a step in the wrong direction, completely unacceptable for men.

So women deserve to be raped simply because you disagree with a legal definition? How does that follow at all?

It follows as retribution and learned helplessness. My rape advocacy is twofold. Two aspects of feminism currently independently justify rape, in my view: 1. equality and 2. feminist corruption of justice. Feminist rape law reform has more than blurred the distinction between rape and consensual sex. In many circumstances it no longer matters in the eyes of the law whether we actually rape a woman or not -- she can regret sex in any case and have us convicted of "rape." The law quite explicitly states that mere negligence is enough to be a rapist even if you had no evil intentions. So why should men care if we rape or not? Women don't respect us anymore, so why should we respect women? Hate breeds hate. I have followed the deterioration of justice closely throughout my life, and my heart has been filled with deeper hatred at every step of feminist legal reform. False rape is now institutionalized. At this point, I don't believe Norwegian women are morally entitled to protection from rape.

Well, shit. All that proves is that women want long-term partners. Nobody is denying sexual differences.

It proves women want much less sex outside of long-term relationships, and this is indeed a profound sexual difference that feminists deny.

I’ve already debunked your use of this source. All your source proves is that women prefer longer-term relationships. I don’t see how it shows that we aren’t in a transitional stage. Not even a generation ago women had hardly any rights or power, now women are just starting to get it. We are still dealing with old, patriarchal culture, we have not transitioned to gender equality. As for your statement, it’s silly. Read below where I talk about marriage.

All the subjects in the Kennair study were under 30 years old. Younger than me. I know what kind of brainwashing they have gone through about the sexes being equal, yet their preferences are identical to previous studies. If there is a transition, it would be evident by now. But it isn't. Women are as picky as ever. I'm not saying women don't have a sex drive, so all your verbiage about that straw man is irrelevant. There just isn't enough of it to go around. Women control everything (except rape). People have sex whenever women want, and men want it a lot more. If I could choose, I would have had 1000 times more sex in my life so far. But only women have sexual agency. And it is getting worse. It is getting to the point where it is difficult to envision ever having consensual sex again.

"Cock is always disgusting to straight men and this isn’t a social construct." Whoops. Psychologists disagree.

No, they don't. The Kinsey scale has been much discredited. The distribution of male sexual orientation is bimodal, with nearly all men being either completely straight or gay. Male bisexuality is largely a myth and certainly not as common as the Kinsey scale suggests. Female sexuality is very different, however. Most women I've known have been at least somewhat attracted to both sexes.

Second, I fail to see any evidence provided on your part for why sexual harassment shouldn’t be taken seriously, of course you don’t take it seriously, because it clashes with your worldview.

No, not because it clashes with my worldview. Sexual harassment fundamentally shouldn't be taken seriously because there is nothing wrong with the kind of behavior feminists call sexual harassment. Both kinds. It is of course well within the moral rights of any boss to demand sex from women quid pro quo or for there to be what they term a "hostile enviroment" due to sexual references. Any claim that this is discrimination against women and therefore should be criminalized must simply be dismissed out of hand. And if women engage in "sexual harassment," then that's great, but it is absurd to call it sexual harassment because the rationale for inventing the legal concept was supposed discrimination against women. Women can't cope with the workplace, so the workplace must change to accommodate women. Of course men should never have accepted this and MRAs must fight for the abolition of all sexual harassment laws.

I’m sorry, but bureaucracy is not “enforced at gunpoint by the police”. Your exaggerations are ludicrous. And you know what? If you disagree with the law, vote against it. It isn’t violence to require schoolchildren to go to school, it is not violence to require business owners to not rape their employees.

What you call "bureaucracy" is indeed ultimately enforced at gunpoint. Norwegian companies are forcibly dissolved if they don't put 40% women in the boardrooms. The threat suffices to coerce compliance, and similarly we could coerce sex out of women without actual violence, for the most part. But the threat of brute violence is always there in bureaucracy no less than in rape. That's how so-called civilized society works. Thugs with bigger guns than us lurk beneath a thin veneer of civility, or we wouldn't pay taxes or comply with government regulations. Forcing children to attend school is also violence, but this is a form of violence I am inclined to agree with unless they are homeschooled. One might also justify violence to prevent business owners from raping their employees (with rape properly defined), but enacting laws against sexual harassment is way out of bounds from a libertarian perspective.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Apparently Yvette Lessard still thinks she has good points that I haven't answered in her blog post EIVIND BERGE: Pro-rape advocate & pals, so I am going to finish this here. See my comments at her blog for the rest and also here.

Eivind Berge does not think rape can be considered rape unless the woman (and he believes only women can be raped) resists to the best of her ability (nevermind if she is unable to give consent, not in a state of mind in which she can give consent, or is being threatened or coerced).

Yvette's reading comprehension is rather poor. I never said only women can be raped. What I have said is only men can be rapists. She also gets my definition of rape wrong. A victim must resist to the best of her (or his) ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury. Otherwise there is no rape. Having sex with an unconscious woman is not rape unless the rapist forcibly put her in that state with the purpose of accomplishing sex with her. It might be a lesser offense, though, depending on the circumstances. If, say, a man breaks into a woman's house and finds her unconscious by chance, sex would be theft or abuse but not rape. If a woman willingly gets intoxicated and goes home with a man and he has his way with her while she is unable to resist, then there is no offense whatsoever and the man is completely innocent, doing what most men would do.

And quick note: I sincerely hope this guy gets raped. Not by women, because he’s made it rather clear he’d take any woman because he’s so desperate, and wouldn’t view it as rape. No, I hope an entire prison worth of men takes their sexual frustration out on them. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that one. Read on for a dissection of his argument, information about the guy and his misogynist pals, and how to help prevent this creep from taking his pro-rape views out on any women.

So, Yvette strongly agrees that there are circumstances where rape is justified. Undeterred by any notion of cruel and unusual punishment, she blatantly states that I deserve rape merely for expressing my opinion. Well, I am saying women deserve rape for actual violence against men enforced by cops, so my case is much stronger than hers, though one might reasonably argue that both are reprehensible.

He states repeatedly on his blog that women have value as sex objects and nothing more.

No, I state that women have the same value as men for any equal accomplishments unrelated to sex, but women have tremendous additional value as sex objects that men lack. This fundamental inequality is the crux of the matter and why rape is equality when everything else is equal.

Eivind Berge’s entire argument basically revolves around “well this psychiatrist guy wrote this article with a title that sounds like it supports my position so I’m right”.

Um, no, of course I knew sex was a female resource long before I read Baumeister. That fact is painfully obvious to any man trying to get laid or any honest observer of what goes on in the real world. I merely cite Baumeister for the convenience of those living under a rock or brainwashed by feminist social constructionist boilerplate, such as yourself.

Yet the psychologist who wrote the article does not even find rape justifiable.

So what? I am able to think for myself and have my own opinion. And he did include a disclaimer because he must have known his argument combined with egalitarian thinking leads to the conclusion that rape is justified.

Eivind Berge focuses entirely on heterosexual-heterosexual rape. Presumably, he thinks he also has a right to the bodies of lesbians whose “sexual worth” was never his to take. I am curious if he thinks male-male rape is rape.

Yes, male-male rape is rape, but it isn't justified because homosexuals are already equal. They can have sex anytime they want just like women can. I might be willing to leave lesbians out of this as well. Only the heterosexual context concerns me.

He believes rape is only rape if the victim, a woman, is resisting to the best of her ability. He does not believe violence, coercion, drugs, childhood innocence, etc, come into the equation. Consent is not necessary in his opinion. However, he doesn’t think it’s possible for a woman to rape a man – he argues this by saying that men would consent to any sex (why hello there double standard) and apparently ignoring the possibility that a man might not consent despite being aroused (Viagra, physical arousal vs. saying NO). This is important to keep in mind when it comes to his argument that women should be raped because, in setting a double standard when it comes to what is rape for a man and what is rape for a woman, he acknowledges that women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth.

I already answered how a woman might give up resistance and still legitimately consider herself raped (if such resistance most likely would get her killed or seriously injured). And how rape by drugs is possible if the drugs are administered against her will. The same definition of rape applies to children, and in fact even Norwegian law is not yet so corrupt that it considers it rape simply because a child's innocence is taken advantage of. That would be considered sexual abuse but not rape if the child went along with it. I do indeed think it's impossible for a woman to rape a man. The double standard is quite real and based on biology. And yes, sometimes "women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth," but they do so much less often than men with a much more limited number of partners. This profound difference is the problem, and a few loose women here and there do little to improve things for men. Sexual coercion is called for if we are to have equality -- and equality was the feminists' idea, remember?

His argument also apparently rests on a false definition of rape, judging by his other posts. Rape is not sexual intercourse where the woman is resisting to the best of her ability. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. That is the nearly universal definition, accepted by just about…everyone, and includes sexual intercourse where one party is coerced or unable to give real consent.

Nope, your definition of rape is only a very recent feminist corruption of justice, and even then it is most often not accepted by juries. Common law defined rape for hundreds of years as carnal knowledge of a woman, not one's wife, by force and against her will. Simple lack of consent does only make it rape according to the most feminist-corrupted jurisprudence. In fact, only ten years ago Norwegian law was aligned with my definition of rape, and a causal element of violence or coercion is still required unless the woman is unable to resist. However, that coercion can now be as mild as threatening to start a rumor about a woman, reporting her for a crime she has actually committed, or even a husband threatening divorce, so the Norwegian definition is now so corrupt that women deserve real rape for this alone, in my view. Until 2000, Norwegian women had to be threatened with serious violence in accordance with my definition. That year mens rea was abolished as well, so now women can get men convicted without even knowing that she didn't really want sex and no malicious intent whatsoever. And the penalty for this is more severe than for involuntary manslaughter. The law quite blatantly says a woman's vagina is worth more than her life, so it is better to drive drunk and kill her than to have drunken, willing sex with the same woman which she later regrets. This is also the year sex with an unconscious woman or a woman unable to resist (which means women can just say they were too drunk to consent) was upgraded from a sort of misdemeanor to "rape," punishable by over ten times as many years (up to 21). Feminist rape law reform has come a long way and is responsible for much of my seething hatred, but still has ways to go because juries often refuse to convict based on the new definition. The final solution will be to abolish the jury in rape trials, and they are working on that right now.

Women’s worth lying in their nether regions is, let’s make this clear, a social construct. Specifically, a social construct which was created by men, perpetuated by men, and is now being defended by men. The article which Eivind links to analyzes the current state of gender roles in most societies (Eivind happily ignores gender equal or matriarchal societies as they do not fit into his worldview), and Eivind uses the nice, authoritative sound of a psychologist’s findings to make his point sound stronger than it truly is.

No, it isn't a social construct. Norway is now as close to an equal or matriarchal society as any known society ever was, and the same sex differences persist, as I posted evidence of recently.

Let’s get this straight: it’s not exactly a revelation that women’s bodies are traded for wealth. This is the general model for how society expects relationships to work. It is, however, just that: a model, a social construct. Male sexuality has no worth in society because those it is of no worth to those in power, ie men. Eivind, as a heterosexual male (aha! So that’s why his link specified heterosexual society) has no desire for cock. He is not willing to pay for it, or make any effort for it, and he would surely cry crocodile tears if it were forced upon him. Would he change his mind if the cock in question were attached to a wealthy business owner, and he were a single father in need of cash? Quite possibly. Does this mean Eivind’s only worth is as a sex object? After all, Eivind is just as capable of being valuable in other ways.

No, I wouldn't change my mind if the cock were attached to a wealthy business owner. Cock is always disgusting to straight men and this isn't a social construct. Unfortunately, most cocks are also disgusting to most women most of the time.

I do not take sexual harassment seriously at all (it was invented by feminists as a tool to empower women and oppress men, criminalizing normal male behavior), and as I have made abundantly clear, women can never be "perps" in any kind of sex crime including forcible rape, because female sexuality is a good thing and any male recipient of a woman's sexual attention is only lucky. However, if the system rewards allegations of sexual harassment and, absurdly, takes men accusing women seriously as well, then it is hardly surprising that some men will try to exploit the system. In any case, only feminists and morons take them seriously as victims. The rest of us see through the bullshit and understand that these men are not alleging harassment because they feel sexually victimized by women.

It’s been well known for a while that women have begun to sexually harass men and make advances in the workplace towards men, abusing their higher economic power just as men have done the past thousand years or so. Why Eivind is not in the know remains unclear. What isn’t unclear is that when men’s economic power is reduced, women are happy to use their own economic power to get sex from men. This proves that when men women gain economic status instead of men, men are not left worthless—their social worth is simply different. In fact, if, as Eivind argues elsewhere on his blog, “men cannot not want sex, they will happily take anything”. If this is the case, perhaps Eivind should be celebrating the fact that economic equality leads to sexual equality and some insane woman might see him as worth anything.

This is simply gibberish. Women do not try to use their power to get sex from men. They use their power to reject more men than ever, and this is the problem. Economic equality leads to sexual inequality.

This is probably the most clearly misogyny-driven claim in Eivind Berge’s argument. The old model (of: society only recognizes women’s value as sex objects and prevents them from having any wealth or power) is being dismantled by the feminists Eivind hates so. In freeing up positions for women, feminists are ending the system of legal prostitution (ie: marriage) in which women had no choice but to give their bodies in exchange for the ability to have food on the table. We are in a period of transition: many women and men still expect women to trade their bodies for sex because it has only been a decade or two since those ideals started being challenged. At the same time, many don’t want that at all.

As the Kennair study shows, we are not in a period of transition. Liberated women will use their power to reject men. Either women must be economically disempowered again so they have to get married, or sexual coercion is necessary. Otherwise there will be a lot of frustrated and dangerous men.

Wealth represents (note: represents, not is, wealth is a social construct as well) access to resources that provide political power and a longer, happier life. Sex is an action resulting from biological lust, socially, it touches upon countless socially constructed meanings. To take wealth to the point where it harms a person is violence, but to deny wealth or power not to the point of harm is not violence. Rape is always violence.

Taking wealth from men is worse than rape reproductively speaking for all the men becoming evolutionary dead ends as a result. And when equality is enforced at gunpoint by the police, it is also quite literally violence. Of course, the threat of violence usually suffices, but such a threat is also all the violence you need for rape. Even more so by the feminist definition, which requires no violence at all and any kind of threat will do no matter how light. You really get hoist by your own petard here. If you want rape to be so loosely defined and still call it "always violence," then it doesn't take much for affirmative action to amount to violence, either.

This is the most obviously ludicrous claim, and where the argument truly falls apart. “Men get less sex as women get more money and power” is not only entirely unsupported by Eivind, only claimed, it’s obvious bullshit. Women have a sex drive.

Of course women have a sex drive, but it is normally very different than the male sex drive. The average man gets less sex as women get more money and power, because women prefer to reject betas and go for alphas when they are in a position to do so. I am not arguing in terms of absolutes, and admit exceptions, which is a concept you don't seem to understand:

The idea that women won’t put out at all as a result of their newfound wealth, however, is downright stupid.

Yes, and I never said such a thing. They put out less for men who are average and below, and that is where I am coming from.

If women are economically equal to men, and as a result are no longer forced to barter the only thing men feel they need from them, women will no longer barter their sexuality. The day men stop treating us as sexual objects is the day women stop treating men as blank checks. But men seem to be in no hurry to do so. It is feminists who are giving men increased social worth by making them more than a checkbook. But leave it to a libertarian to think only in terms of monetary value.

This is a complete non sequitur. Feminism takes away much of the leverage we had to obtain sex. You are either intellectually dishonest or very stupid if you think this gives men increased worth. We don't like to pay for sex and would prefer not to, but receptive women are just such a scarce resource that we often have to. Feminism makes female sexuality even scarcer because women can afford to be pickier and never have to sell sex out of necessity. Only the most desirable men get more sex under feminism, but they always had easy access to women. Everyone else gets less.

PUAs do sometimes successfully use the artifice of game to fool women about their value (e.g. refusing to pay for drinks, negs, etc.), but this deception will only work as long as PUAs are few or until women catch on.

First, let’s get something clear. Women are not stupid—on average, we’re as intelligent as any male, as tests over the last century have confirmed. Occasionally we are found to be a few points less intelligent, but that’s been disputed by men, and women have been found to have higher IQ’s at later stages of life.

Average IQ is not the whole story. While the mean IQ might be about the same for both men and women, the variability of male IQ is greater, meaning there are more men at both the high and low extremes. There are more male geniuses who accomplish great things (as well as more male idiots), and also men are more aggressive and have a different cognitive repertoire than women. So you naturally get different outcomes for the sexes.

According to the hypothesis, mental pain is brought about by social tragedies in the lives of individuals and focuses the attention of individuals on the events surrounding the pain, promoting correction of the pain-causing events and their avoidance in the future. The hypothesis applied to rape victims proposes that in human evolutionary history raped females had increased fitness as a result of mental pain, because the pain forced them to focus attention on the fitness-reducing circumstances surrounding rape, which are discussed. Some of the hypothesis' predictions about the psychological pain of rape victims are examined using a data set of 790 rape victims in Philadelphia (USA) who were interviewed about their psychological traumatization within five days after the assault. The analyses indicate that, as predicted, a victim's age and marital status are proximate causes of the magnitude of psychological pain following rape. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more severely traumatized by rape than older women or girls and married women more than unmarried women. The results presented suggest that the psychology that regulates mental pain processes information about age and mateship status in the event of a woman's rape.

Eivind Berge actually claims that when a white man rapes a woman, it’s a made up feminist statistic, but it’s not (and somehow worse) when non-whites do it.

No, I was just comparing the number of rape allegations, not saying how credible they are. The point is that women didn't even accuse a single white man of attacking and raping them in the street in those years, versus 41 non-white. This is the classical form of rape that fits my definition and most women agree is the worst, even though they now also can legally call it rape in a number of milder scenarios such as regretting drunken sex, etc. You have to believe that women report false rape close to 100% of the time to deny this trend, and not even any MRAs go that far.

Hypergamous? Yea, women had to be. As one commenter put it: "It strikes me that hypergamy can only occur in societies where there is a pronounced social inequality between sexes in the first place. ‘Marrying up’ is presumably an attempt to address that imbalance for some reason, possibly for the sake of children. Wouldn’t this imply that as the sexes become more equal in terms of status, money, power etc, the difference between the desirability of rich and poor men will decrease?"

It is becoming clear that women respond to equality by increasingly not marrying at all, or delaying marriage while sleeping around with the few men who actually have the status to be attractive to women. Betas get less sex with women when they are young and most desirable.

Affirmative action was not pushed through by "feminists." Affirmative action was pushed through the political sphere, which is overwhelmingly controlled by men (for example, in the US, only 17 out of 100 senators are female today). So you should really be angry with other men, not women.

The political sphere is not "overwhelmingly controlled by men" just because most senators are men. Whoever votes for these men has the power, and women are the majority of the electorate.

Sure smell is important, but the study you link to also confirms female hypergamy: "These findings support previous results showing that body odor is a critical signal in female mate choice (Herz & Cahill, 1997). Also in accord with previous studies (Buss; Buss; Buss and Landolt), women gave higher ratings than men did to variables related to status and resource potential and men gave higher ratings to good looks (Buss, D.M., 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, pp. 1–49.). For men, the only factor to outrank good looks was the social factor, pleasantness."

And in a more humorous end, let’s point out another way in which Eivind Berge is wrong—here’s an example of a “free-sex” brothel opening in Norway where men and women are volunteering to have sex with strangers, for free. Kind of goes against everything he’s claimed, doesn’t it.

How naive can you get? That "free-sex brothel" was just a publicity stunt or hoax and isn't happening.

Oh, and everybody please be my guest and sign Yvette's petition against me. It will accomplish nothing.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Yesterday I posted empirical evidence for the usual sex differences still persisting in ostensibly egalitarian Norway. Today I am going to elaborate a bit on the theory behind why women must always be the selective sex.

In the Darwin festivities of 2009 I attended a talk by professor Peter Hammerstein, where he said the law of supply and demand does not apply in the sexual marketplace. Simply put, anisogamy + sex ratio theory = supply and demand doesn’t apply = sexuality belongs entirely to women and male sexuality is worthless. The mating market is indeed a market, but an asymmetric one where the balance of sexual power is so skewed in favor of females that the law of supply and demand is abrogated. What he basically said can also be found here starting at page 156. In a typical market, supply tends to equal demand. We don't have, for example, a motor industry manufacturing billions of cars than no one has any use for. Not so in the sexual market. Since sperm is so cheap compared to eggs, sperm is tremendously overproduced and eagerly offered to all takers and more. The inevitable result of this (and more to the point, the fact that females must also invest in pregnancy) is that male sexuality is worthless and we are mere slaves to women.

But enough theory for now. This poster was recently shared over at The Spearhead, and I wanted it to find a home here on my humble blog as well to illustrate what life is all about (click to enlarge).

As someone said, sex to a woman is a means to an end while to a man, sex is an end in itself. Or, when it comes to sex, women are capitalists and men are communists. Women choose. Women are sex objects. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Rape is equality. All these clichés are equivalent statements and can also be graphically presented like this:

In other words, sex is a female resource and the male body has no intrinsic value. Due to evolution and human nature it must perforce be this way, and it is only delusional to think the playing field can be leveled within the present social conditions. While studying game is a good idea and can greatly benefit individual men, this does nothing for men as a group because mating is a zero-sum game. Others in the movement take a sour-grapes approach and pretend surrendering in the sexual marketplace is a solution. This is beyond pathetic and only serves to make them evolutionary dead ends. If the men's movement is going to go anywhere, we need to face reality first.

Only after acknowledging this reality can men begin move forward and decide what to do. Many of us are clearly unhappy under feminism, and I tend to think the solution is to reinstate patriarchal values. We will always be ruled by pussy and that is the way it should be, but by subjugating women in other ways, men and women can have fulfilling relationships based on a fair exchange of resources. Then more men will actually have something to offer and women will be compelled to barter their sexuality, rather than enjoy gratuitous equality in addition to all their sexual power like they do now.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Commenters on my blog often claim I can't have as much sex as I want because there is simply something wrong with me, and if I only held politically correct feminist views like most people in Norway, I would have no problems. This anonymous comment left last night is typical:

Just because women don't want to have sex with YOU (which I'm willing to bet is because of your digusting view towards them) doesn't mean that they don't want to have sex with men. You are turning your personal issues into a dangerous weapon that will serve no purpose other than to drag down humanity as a whole. That's right, we're in this together men and women both with equal responsibility.

If my views were really the problem, then other men in Norway, being the well-trained feminists that they are, would have as much sex as they want. But they don't. We are certainly not in this together with equal responsibility, because women call all the shots and have all the power. Sexuality belongs entirely to women, and men are far from satisfied with what women decide to give us. A recent study by Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair et al. gives the lie to the myth that all is idyllic in this feminist utopia:

Once again it is demonstrated that sex is a female resource. Norway is extremely egalitarian and feminist -- according to the article "typically the highest rated nation in terms of gender empowerment as indexed by the United Nations" -- yet women desire as few partners and little sex after as much courtship as ever. The only thing changed as a result of all this feminist "empowerment" is that women now tell the truth about actual partners rather than underestimating as they have done on past surveys. Remarkably, for the first time women and men report the same number of partners in the last year on average, which mathematically must be the same in the same population. This shows women are honest, so we have every reason to believe they are also telling the truth about wanting sex less than men and with far fewer partners. Even with the extreme scores (all male, of course) omitted, which means the difference is probably actually larger, sexual attitudes are so profoundly different:

It is by now abundantly clear that this is immutable human nature. Norwegian women believe they can do everything men can and they don’t even face significant shaming for being sluts, yet they simply don’t want sex as much as men, even on anonymous surveys. This is the ugly truth about female sexuality, well explained by the difference in minimum parental investment required of the sexes. There is nothing morally wrong with women for pursuing this limited sexual strategy, of course, any more than there is anything wrong with men for wanting to sleep with as many women as possible. Each sex is simply acting optimally according to the mandates of evolution. But it does mean that sexual equality is not achievable. And it means that when women coerce equality in other areas, making male sexuality even more worthless, then the appropriate response from men is to coerce sexual equality to recover what we have lost by women's unprecedented economic freedom to express their feral, extremely picky sexuality.

The authors warn against the dangers of denying sex differences:

Importantly, one should seriously consider the effects of continuing to make claims that are not reasonable based on the extant empirical evidence. Continuing to claim that there are no significant, predictable sex differences in sexual desire, fantasy, or attitude does a disservice to the truth, and will only generate attitudes of distrust and violation from those who in time come to learn the actual evidence. According to this study and the overwhelming weight of the evidence, it is clear: there are sex differences. In everyday life, people continue to be exposed to these differences and only an honest approach to the expression of sex differences will allow us to fully understand them.

From a clinical perspective, it is worrisome to consider the effects of claims that there are no differences, when indeed there are, have on the emotional climate of couples experiencing differences. In such cases, experts claiming that there are no differences will be inducing guilt and shame in females, and doubt and worry in males, and increase the number of couples experiencing differences in sexual desire that believe there is something wrong in their relationship. Thereby ideological claims of similarity aimed at not suppressing female sexuality, might be causing females to feel pressure into having sex they do not desire.

All of this is true, but it is also dangerous to tell the truth about sexuality in an equalist society, because equality applied to sex is not going to be pleasant for women. So perhaps the social constructionist feminists are not really the clowns they appear to be. All the hate my blog has elicited indicates that deep down feminists know true equality would also entail sexual coercion, because women's advantage as sex objects is so great that it surpasses any historical male privilege, and when all this supposed male privilege is abolished, we are left with sexual oppression of men. They can't really argue against this rationally, so they resort to denying sex differences instead and try to have me censored or worse.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Commenter Aaron Weingott said something under my argument that rape is equality that made me reflect a little on where I am headed.

Well, this is the best corroboration of Nietzsche's maxim "fight not with monsters lest ye become a monster" I've ever seen.

My initial reaction was that fighting with feminists may be a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Nonetheless, there comes a point when all the hate you generate becomes a little too onerous, and especially the deluge of lies from social constructionists and gullible morons indoctrinated with this feminist drivel about rape being about power rather than sex is getting on my nerves. So perhaps I will take my blog in a slightly less strident direction from here. I still think my argument is valid though, as reductio ad absurdum of feminism, but spending too much time debating it might be a bad idea. Have I become a monster?

Quite right. It isn't rape by any reasonable definition unless the woman resists to the best of her ability, and such resistance would obviously make it impossible to remove her jeans without leaving a mark. The only way a woman can legitimately consider herself raped without fighting to the best of her ability is if doing so would likely get her or someone she commonly protects killed or seriously injured. Since the woman does not even accuse the man of threatening her with anything in this case, this is certainly not rape even if she is telling the truth.

This is a victory for men, albeit an isolated one in a hateful climate of feminist corruption of justice, and I'm sure feminists will only redouble their efforts to convict more men falsely accused of rape. I don't know if they have double jeopardy in Australia, but if they do, Nicholas Eugenio Gonzalez will almost certainly be convicted upon appeal. In Norway we actually have triple jeopardy, at least. A man can be acquitted twice and then the professional feminist judges can set aside the jury's verdict and order a new trial with fewer jurors and this happens because that's how arrogant the feminist justice system is. The legal definition of rape is vastly more inclusive than what your peers including non-feminist women consider to be rape, so a jury will frequently acquit despite the man clearly being guilty by the feminist legal definition. The final solution is to abolish the jury, which feminists are lobbying for as we speak, and meanwhile they will disrespect the jury whenever it refuses to convict a man accused of rape. Norwegian men ultimately have no rights, nothing to stop feminists from rigging the system against men however they see fit. My guess is the jury will be gone relatively soon in rape cases.

Of course, even if we had some sort of sacred constitutional guaranteed right to a jury trial like Americans do, feminists would still find ways to rig the system against men and prevent us from getting a fair trial, as in rape shield laws and so on, withholding evidence from the jury to boost convictions. So either way feminists win and men lose. Until we start fighting back. The first step is to stop respecting women and not have any sympathy for actual rape victims either. I have at least reached that point. In fact, I gloat when a woman is actually raped. Since women and the law do not care if we actually rape and only care about obtaining convictions, we might as well get our money's worth.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

On Wednesday evening policeman Olav Kildal thought he was going on a routine mission in Mo i Rana, Norway, to kidnap another victim of psychiatry for forcible "treatment." But this time, the victim was prepared to fight back. After 34 years on the beat as a fascist pig, Olav Kildal finally had his comeuppance. Kildal was stabbed to death as he tried to enter the victim's house. His female porcine partner meanwhile got scared and ran away, leaving Kildal to bleed to death by the time the thugs returned with plenty of reinforcements, riot gear, automatic weapons, and tear gas but nonetheless took all night, until 6 in the morning to capture this hero of the people (whose name the newspapers won't mention, so all we know is he is 62 years old).

Good news for men is rare in this hateful feminist utopia that is Norway, but today is a joyous day! Today I feel schadenfreude in my heart along with all the hate that feminism and resultant mate deprivation have instilled in me. One blue thug less on the streets. One less feminist enforcer. And as this story so beautifully illustrates, the pigs enforce psychiatry as well. This hero's knife attack on Kildal can only be characterized as self-defense. Forcible psychiatric "treatment" is fundamentally wrong and of course anyone subjected to it has the moral right to defend himself with deadly force.

Update: It has come to light that Kildal apparently broke into the victim's home without the requisite warrants. So it wasn't just morally wrong and based on laws I disagree with; it was probably illegal, too, and defending oneself from such abuses of power is justified in every way. Killdal wasn't just doing his job. He was a criminal thug who got his just deserts.

Thursday, April 08, 2010

The same crazy lady who tried to bring down Roissy is now reporting my "rape blog" to the "Vice President" of my university.

Don’t worry, Denise I already reported him, his IP address, his physical address, and his blog to the Vice President of his campus (at Bergen University in Norway). I sent her proof that the he is currently posting his rape blog FROM the campus, using their network, and is likely to be selecting a victim as we speak.

I provided her with all his IP information, user info, net stats, full name, photo, and everything else she needs to send to the Norwegian Police or use as one of the Heads of the University (since I have no idea what the laws are in Norway) but I warned her that there is a dangerous man who is encouraging and planning rape and possibly murder typing all that from her campus as we speak.

I will continue to send her any and all information on his geographical location each time he so much as takes a breath, moves from his spot, or posts something new.

I am quite certain that she would be concerned about a student on campus using their network to blog about raping women….especially being on a college campus where rape is very rampant. No school would overlook a student like him or his comments and blog that he stupidly posted his name and his picture right next to, to remove any doubt at all.

Bye, bye asshole. Hope you get the help you need.

Lady Raine is so dense it took her a year to figure out my location even though it was right there in my profile the whole time, and now she thinks she can hurt me by reporting my blog. Well, the whole reason for blogging is to be read. I stand by every word of what I have written (except the typos). It is not, however, criminal and her paraphrase is a distortion of what I am saying. To accuse me of planning rape and murder is nothing but calumny. For example, I said that in the hypothetical situation of rapists being assured the death penalty, this would likely lead to more rapists killing their victims as well, and so imposing the death penalty for rape would make the world a more dangerous place for women. Her reading comprehension is such that next she accuses me of planning to murder women. And that is representative for everything she writes. I appreciate my blog being promoted, but anyone should take everything Lady Raine says with a grain of salt and read what I actually write before jumping to conclusions.

Sunday, January 03, 2010

Legislators are constantly at work finagling further erosion of our liberties, and this New Year's Day the turn came to animals. It is now illegal in Norway to have sex with animals. It is illegal to use live bait or pet food. You have to be 16 to be responsible for a pet, and it is illegal to fail to report any kind of animal abuse or neglect -- snitching is mandatory. The punishment for breaking this law is up to three years imprisonment.

So what are people going to feed their snakes now that live food is illegal? No problem, Norway already banned reptiles and amphibians back in 1974, no exceptions.

Last year we banned bottle rockets, but that's all good because there is nothing to celebrate anyway. Each year just heralds new prohibitions and more feminism. This year in feminism we are expanding the 40% female quota to apply to the boardrooms of 1500 more companies. Readers of my blog already know how I feel men should react against that.